Steyn discovers the ‘essence of Mann’: Eau de weasel

Well, we knew it would happen, it was just a matter of when. Dr. Michael Mann is trying to weasel out of discovery in the Mann-Steyn Steamroller case.

Steyn reports on the latest: ==========================================================

You can read the whole thing here. But the takeaway is that, apparently, it’s all my fault:

On January 30, 2014, Plaintiff renewed his discovery requests against National Review. National Review responded by e-mail on February 7, reminding Plaintiff’s counsel that this Court had already ruled that discovery should be stayed until its Anti-SLAPP motion could be finally resolved in the Court of Appeals. In response, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that while he did not agree with National Review’s position, he would not press the issue of discovery for the time being. A few weeks later, however, on March 6, Plaintiff’s counsel called National Review’s counsel to renew his discovery requests yet again. Plaintiff’s counsel explained that he felt obliged to renew discovery because National Review’s co-defendant, Mark Steyn, had decided not to pursue an appeal, and had instead indicated his desire to proceed with discovery against Plaintiff. Thus, according to Plaintiff’s counsel, it would be impracticable to proceed with discovery between himself and Steyn without the involvement of the other co-Defendants.

Putting aside the bizarre posture of National Review, now standing athwart the DC court calendar yelling “Stop!”, we should not overlook the real significance of this document. Ever since this wretched case began a year-and-a-half ago, those who know Dr Mann have been saying that he would obstruct discovery, as he’s currently doing in court in Vancouver and Virginia. Today’s filing marks the first confirmation that such is the case.

What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him? There are four defendants, so Mann has served four separate requests for discovery. I’ve returned mine; National Review, CEI and Rand Simberg are sitting on theirs. The four defendants will in turn submit, collectively, four requests for discovery upon Dr Mann. Why is responding to mine ahead of NR’s any more “impracticable” than me responding to his ahead of NR’s response? What’s so difficult about that? Where, indeed, is there even a smidgeonette of “impracticability”?

There are four defendants and one plaintiff. Of the five of us, I seem to be the only one anxious to exercise his right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:

If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.

Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.

“Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.”

Mark Steyn is the closest thing I’ve had to a hero since i was a kid..

We’ve been waiting for you Mr. Steyn and the community of proud skeptics will I have no doubt, support you generously all the way to the finish line.

Nail that sniveling coward to the wall. (figuratively speaking of course).

Fantastic. Mann has an article in Scientific American at present. ‘Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036 ‘ I have been a sceptical commenter at SCIAM for years & have copped heaps of abuse from others for holding sceptical views on many of their articles. SCIAM put their terms for comments at the end of the article re abuse etc. I pointed out the numerous cases of abuse by AGW users that followed & asked if the rules only applied to sceptics. My account was cancelled. I have been banned. They have to protect the Mann.

According to the court site, on March 19, they received
“National Review’s Motion for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Appeal Filed. Submitted 03/19/2014 17:58. ajm”. Steyn has it here. It seems plaintiff is opposing this.

“…I’m sure that someone else can come up with a better name for the counter.”

The lapse rate? Or, maybe combine the days lapsed since Mann has fought discovery in any of his numerous legal proceedings, so that it takes off like a well known item of sporting equipment as the new cases pile up ;-)

Scientific American is carrying Mann’s water. In the comments below that article, name-calling against skeptics is the norm. It is condoned and encouraged. But if a skeptic simply points out some scientific facts, SciAm deletes the comment.

I posted the following comment, verbatim. I quicky received an email from the SciAm “Webmaster” telling me that I had engaged in “name-calling”, and that I am permanently banned from ever commenting there again.

Here is what I wrote, with no changes:

The following are a few scientific facts, and comments regarding scientific evidence [please note that scientific “evidence” has a specific meaning. ‘Evidence’ means raw data, and verifiable empirical {real world} observations. Peer reviewed papers, IPCC reports, and computer climate models are not scientific evidence. Rather, they are assertions.] :

Global warming STOPPED, 17+ years ago. [We cannot call it a “pause”, unless it resumes.] No computer climate model was able to predict that event. They were ALL wrong.

Further, it is a scientific fact that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that the climate parameters being observed now [temperatures, extreme weather events, etc.], have ALL been exceeded in the past — when CO2 [“carbon”] was lower.

Current global temperatures have been exceeded in the past by a large degree. Therefore, nothing currently being observed is either unusual, or unprecedented. The fact is that we are currently living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no evidence that global temperatures are rising, as was incessantly predicted for many years — until it didn’t happen. Global warming has stopped. That is a fact that even NASA/GISS acknowledges.

Next, to put the “carbon” scare into perspective: CO2 has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.

The recent rise in global temperatures, beginning around 1980 and ending around 1997, was only temporarily coincidental with the continuing, steady rise in CO2 — and the only verifiable correlation shows that ∆CO2 is CAUSED by ∆T; not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming.

CO2 is a very tiny trace gas, currently just 0.000397 of the atmosphere, but it is essential to all life on earth. At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better. There is no scientific evidence proving that CO2 is anything but a completely harmless trace gas, which is very beneficial to the biosphere.

CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, when life on earth flourished. The current rise is of no concern. Certainly some of the rise is due to human activity. However, if CO2 was the cause of any measurable global warming, then the recent large percentage rise would have forced temperatures up sharply. But as we know, global T stopped rising many years ago.

Finally, the unspoken agenda is to pass a huge new carbon tax. That is the motive behind the “carbon” scare. As if hard-bitten taxpayers are not paying enough already.

Was I calling names? Anyone reading the other comments there can see their repeated and vicious use of the pejoratives “denialist”, “deniers”, etc. I even wrote to SciAm, asking them to delete those comments for incessant name-calling, which is against their written policy.

No dice. I am banned. They are not. The pro-Mann crowd gets to insult. They are pulling out all the stops to support Michael Mann, no?

Gutless or not, it makes sense for NR to wait and see if it prevails under Anti-SLAPP. That would end their involvement without further cost. If that cuts the ground out from under Mann’s case, It would leave da Mann with a huge problem of what to do about Steyn’s countersuit.

Many libertarian-minded observers have been critical of the quality of arguments and positions put forth by NR, and they are not known for being staunch defenders of liberty.

There are many theories regarding NR, and quite a few involve the Koch connection. I for one am not surprised at all that they are not defending Steyn and his freedom of speech more vigorously. If they were not co-defendants, I suspect they would be more than happy to let him twist in the wind without a word in his defense.

Murray Rothbard tells the tale of how it all began. Well worth a read.

You sue four defendants – you open yourself up to fighting on four fronts. His choice. For a guy with a fool for a lawyer (at least according to so warmist bloggers like Appell and Bickmore) Steyn is not doing too badly…

A few years ago there was a case SCO v IBM. SCO sued IBM over an intellectual property issue related to the Unix patents which SCO asserted they owned and to which IBM, they asserted, infringed. SCO then went on the sue Red Hat, Novell, DamlerChrysler, and Autozone. SCO masterfully worked each of the litigants off each other — doing things like filing a motion to stay the one pending the resolution of the other and then filing a motion to stay the other pending the resolution of the one! The litigation went on for 7 years. Theoretically, if Mann’s objective is to visit economic hardship of the defendants, then perusing a SCO-like strategy would be the way to do it.

But I happen to like Steyn’s bat sh*t crazy strategy: keep you costs low, take some early losses and make it up on appeal, and appeal, and appeal. Its legal rope-a-dope that I suspect Mann’s team was not prepared for. All the while, Steyn seems to be enjoying himself.

I have sent Mr. Steyn a check for $100 , USA, for a gift certificate I will never cash unless Mr. Steyn is PAID a hugh settlement from Mickey Mouse Mann. I do not usually contribute to this type of thing, but I urge everyone reading these words to join me with whatever you can afford.

As should be clear to everyone by now, there is nothing “scientific” about Sci-Am, as it is now nothing but a political mouthpiece for a currently fashionable cult. Those of us who remember when it was worthwhile can lament the passing of what was once a great name, while eagerly anticipating its demise.

Which won’t be long – that’s a big reason for the scare-mongering. They’ve painted themselves into a corner by flogging a political horse in order to sell magazines. When the political movement falls apart, so will that magazine. I imagine it will continue as some vanity blog, but that will be about it.

I doubt there are many subscriptions left among readers here, but if there are any, it is long past time to cancel them. Sci-Am is dead, and there is nothing to be gained by propping up (or for that matter, trying to talk to) a rotting corpse.

Really, that’s the strategy? Make it up on appeal? I really think that he KNOWS Mann cannot afford to actually go into discovery and he’s called his bluff. He won’t have to make it up on appeal if his discovery finds enough dirt vindicate him. It’s at LEAST possible, no? After all, why has Mann avoided discovery and scrutiny for so long and so hard?

Ummm. I think Mann’s lawyer is right. Whether or not the NR is a party to whatever action remains, it will either as a party or as a non-party need to disclose documents. The real question is when Mann gets to disclose his documents. There doesn’t seem to be anything about that question in Stein’s article.

dbstealey: Thank you for your comment – the one that got you banned from SciAm. It was very good. I went to the SciAm article by Mann and read the comments. The laugh – actually, a guffaw – is that many of the strident alarmist/Mann supporters are responding to comments that have obviously been removed. So, in the favourite words of the warmistas, they are out of context! (Most of the responses seem to be bile-filled rants against Hschtick). So bloody funny.

The way I heard it, in 2005 he coughed up to Mac (essentially) the code for MBH98 — under threat of congressional subpoena. And that’s when his troubles began.

And now, nine long years later, he is running out of dodges. But he is too far out on a limb to get back. I accept his sincerity (though not much else). And I think he really believes those things he believes. He turned out to be the wrong Mann in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel kind of sorry for the guy.

P. Berkin says:
>Anthony, how about putting a counter on the home page showing the lapsed number of days until Michael Mann yields to the discovery request?

I Agree with Bart about the name of the indicator: Lapse Rate (like a bank rate – it goes up)

Lapse Rate is a climate term.
The window for proof CO2-AGW has lapsed.
The rate of warming has lapsed.
The time for proving the models correct has lapsed.
The number of things that have lapsed is increasing at a high rate.
The number of days that will elapse stalling ‘discovery’ may set a new record. We should keep an eye on it.

I suspect the counter-suit-ee will not encounter the same dawdling from the plaintiff, Steyn who seems really anxious to give him that for which he so stridently asked.

“I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.”
No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.

dbstealey, another appreciation here! Like I said in another thread, the problem with CAGW sceptics is that they are a well informed group of people who study the facts and argue their possition tenaciously. I don’t remember who actually said that but when I read it I was floored. You have quite nicely wrapped up the issue in a tidy comment. No wonder Sci Am bumped your comment. As for the meter for Mannitus, perhaps the “Mann O Man O Meter”?? measured in singular popped corn kernels per day …..

Furthermore, NR’s pleadings make a basic error:
“If National Review’s appeal succeeds, then the claims against Steyn will almost certainly need to be dismissed as well, thus vitiating the need for any discovery at all.”
Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.

So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers? And if (or more likely, when) his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs, what is his fallback position? Another attack on the case judge?

” wws says:March 20, 2014 at 1:01 pm
I’ve lost a lot of respect for NR, owing to their gutlessness in fighting this case.”

What “gutlessness” would that be, exactly? They’re using a very well-regarded law firm with expertise in this field, and they’re continuing the fight — they’re just not blowing their horn about it the way Steyn is. And unlike Steyn, they actually are willing to recognize what they can and cannot do in the current American legal system.

Read PopeHat’s “Fool for a Client” post from last week and you’ll realize Steyn, not NR, is the one you should be losing respect for.

“So now Steyn the self-representing litigant is reviewing the work of real lawyers? And if (or more likely, when) his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs, what is his fallback position? Another attack on the case judge?”

Exactly right, Magma. Steyn’s grandstanding and arrogance are actually endangering the very cause he claims to be fighting for.

To Rob Hobart, who wrote:”when his $30 million counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice and costs,”

You are assuming that this is an English case. Nobody gets awarded costs in the US system (with a couple extremely rare exceptions,usually involving criminal negligence) It’s probably the greatest weakness in the US system, but it makes filing lawsuits in the US virtually risk-free. Even if they’re baseless, the object of your suit still has to pay a lot of money just to deal with the nonsense. That’s what Mann has been doing, and so Steyn is just returning the favor.

(And even if the complaint is dismissed, you can appeal the dismissal, and so on, and so forth, and keep the aggravation going for years. It’s called “lawfare”.)

evanmjones wrote ” … But he is too far out on a limb to get back. I accept his sincerity (though not much else). And I think he really believes those things he believes. He turned out to be the wrong Mann in the wrong place at the wrong time. I feel kind of sorry for the guy.”
I don’t feel one bit sorry for him, a long time ago, he could have said “Oops, I should have tested my software better, nice catch McIntire”.

“What is so “impracticable” about proceeding with discovery between me and him?”

Court efficiency. There are going to be objections. The judge doesn’t want to hear and rule on your arguments, then repeat the process with the other defendants later. I can understand that.
What I don’t understand is why you turned over your documents so far in advance of the others.

You might want to read up on SCO’s legal actions on Grocklaw. In the IT world, it was a fascinating amusement for those 7 years. June 2010 SCO lost and a motion to appeal was rejected. Novell won. Overview link below. Basically, it seems like it is a really stupid idea to sue unless you really can win and have a clean underwear drawer. Discovery is a bitch and all sorts of nasties lurk inside.

What I don’t understand is why you turned over your documents so far in advance of the others.

1. It is a fair presumption, IMHO, that Steyn finds them to be benign and/or exculpatory.
2. Steyn can now, with some considerable legitmacy I think, commence to rhetorically capitalize on Mann’s track record of non-compliance with discovery, no small part in this instance of “lawfare”.

““I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial.”
No, you won’t, Steyn. Sadly, your countersuit has no standing and will certainly be dismissed, as PopeHat and other conservative legal bloggers have tried to warn you.”

Yeah, but you are forgetting that Steyn know more about everything than “experts”, be they scientists, lawyers or judges. They are all just incompetent imbeciles who could learn a thing or two from a real expert like Steyn.

Mr. Stealey, might I suggest you take your comment, and the email discussing the ban, directly to social media? For example, posting some screenshots on a hosting site, and hash tagging, and making a shareable post on FB which can be thus distributed? Make every effort to get the objective demonstration of a lack of objectivity on sciams part disseminated as widely as possible?

Only you can prevent mass media manipulation, and mass media itself provides the tools.

March 20, 2014 at 2:23 pm | dbstealey says
————-
What about setting up a FaceBook page, conveniently named to draw search attention, to record censorship by SciAm … include the article header and ‘abstract’ followed by the censored responses, and be sure to delete responses from the warmista.

I am sure that other journalists will support the theory of free speech, if they are indeed skeptical of Mann, and who cannot be if he refuses to produce his data related papers. If he refuses to do this is this not contempt of court? Either way he has lost credibility, and will open a can of worms for other suits perhaps. Go Mark and best of luck their are thousands of scientists and lay persons who will support your case.

Steyn is “endangering the very cause he claims to be fighting for.” ??? The cause of free speech? He’s endangering that cause by freely speaking? By freely pointing out how corrupt and idiotic our system has become? By refusing to comply with some standard of decorum that may have been deserved by our justice system in the past, but that has no relevance to the endless paperwork and legal minutia that now rules the day?

You want him to bend over and take it all quietly, just like others before him have. Well too bad for you AND whatever brand of political correctness you rode in on. We’re DONE taking it. We’re DONE playing by the rules established to pacify the masses while ignoring true justice. It’s people like you, who refuse to grow a spine, who refuse to stand up and DEMAND that their rights get respected and protected as much as anyone else’s, that forget what our forefathers were willing to do for freedom and justice that have brought this nation to it’s knees.

I don’t CARE if he wins or not. I don’t care what Ken White or a hundred “conservative” bloggers say about this case. Even Ken White agrees with and supports his cause while having the integrity to admit that the system is flawed and redundant.

Steyn has it right.
When the game is rigged against justice and reason, forget the rules.
So far the American Just-Us system has done a fine job of stripping American citizens of their constitutional rights.
When robbed by legal theft or held up with a weapon, you are still dispossessed.
Free speech is too important to trust to lawyers.
After all trusting your lawyer is an oxymoron.

I’m with Steyn, Aphan, and Robertson: I’ve seen the rotten system from the perspective of witness, plaintiff, and defendent, in both superior and small claims courts. It’s a broken system encased with the bogus entangling webs that guild weavers have spun thick and sticky.
But it is a system susceptible to pressure, appropriately, and I’m done lying down and taking it. It’s long past time to push back and a free-speech case in DC court involving a free-speech warrior against the biggest public policy boondoggle and control point in a century is the PERFECT case to jam back down their throats.
This is where we must stand. And if we fail, we must pony up the $$ to make sure we win on appeal, in an even noisier fashion.
Here, Now, Us!

Brilliant, succinct, and definitely not insulting nor violating any possible reasonable website comments policy. I wonder what would happen if some peer-reviewed (skeptical) scientist were to copy and paste that comment into one of his or her own? Would they censor accredited scientists with memberships in scientific societies if they posted the ‘wrong’ stuff? Quite outrageous – if only there was some way to publicize this SciAm sleaziness.

Re dbstealey’s comment. There was no name calling, but there ‘are non so blind, as those who refuse to see’. Of course one of their motives is politically biased, but also I wonder if all those so called scientists that were given grants are worried they will ever be given any more if they have corrupted data to prove their hypothesis. Academic suicide.
Any grasp at straws to rebut any enlightened criticism, (the meteor question was hilarious) extreme weather, billions will die if you don’t believe (sounds almost like a false prophet’s religious dogma) I just pray that someone with weight in the media, starts to change course and cause. I think they are all scared that Mannie will sue them? What did one of our posters state a quote from Mark Twain or someone, ….”It is easier to fool people, than prove they have been fooled”
If your back pocket has been tampered with (ie. financial fraud) that is a criminal felony. Doesn’t anyone care about the damage these warmists are promoting to people’s generally ideology and favoring to hear from false prophets, ignoring this scam? Go Mark.

I re registered at SCIAM as Thomas Carlyle. Shortly after I sent the comment below it too disappeared. My original comment had nothing abusive about it. The comment from MARCHER remained.
I responded to the SciAm Admin post & asked about abusive posts calling sceptical bloggers deniers, shills etc. or if it would only apply to sceptical commenters. I got this response from a serial offender. His comment stands. My comment was deleted. My account was closed. I have had to re register under a new name. I do not really care if I am banned again. I will not try & sneak back in either. I will leave it to other commenters to judge whether they wish to have robust exchanges or simply be part of a mutual back slapping club.
MARCHER Carlyle March 18, 2014, 10:49 PM
No one uses pejorative terms against sceptical commenter.

Tin foil hat wearing acolytes in the holy church of denialism who blindly and unquestioningly believe in fossil fuel funded conspiracy theories are not, in any sense of the word, sceptics.

Now this appears below my comment box on another machine that I had remained logged in on: You are currently signed in as This user’s commenting privileges have been revoked for misuse. Please ignore/report all commentary by this user.. If this is incorrect, please sign out.

When I try to log in now I get this: There is no account with the Email address that was provided.

“Why Global Warming Will Cross a Dangerous Threshold in 2036” I get flashback to people, 20 years ago or more, on my door claiming that the end is near and the only way to survive is to accept his idea and give him my money?
Scientific America? They better change it to Policy based America?

If you want an example of Michael Mann’s mathematical ability, the Scientific American article is a great example. He needs to double-check his basic math skills because …

The formula predicts that warming in the next 22 years will increase to 0.43C per decade (8 times faster than the long-term warming rate and infinitely faster than today’s current Zero warming rate) in order to reach +2.0C by 2036.

That rate is also 2 times higher than the IPCC models which means he did not use climate science formulae, or double-check what he produced. Something like the Hockey Stick in fact.

bushbunny says:
March 20, 2014 at 8:45 pm
—————————————————–
I don’t see any valid reason for deleting the dbs post either. My only point of disagreement, really, is that the raw data won’t quite do. There are couple of necessary adjustments:

One has to prune the outliers. I assume (without specific knowledge, however) that they do that one correctly.

Then there is TOBS bias. Either those stations have to be adjusted or dropped. Those adjustments do not appear to be too far off the beam — I think. I drop them myself because it is a large adjustment with a large MoE. But Anthony and I are using only USHCN stations. There may not be sufficient coverage outside the US without those stations.

Finally, there is MMTS equipment bias. That is a step change of ~0.06, or ~0.02 per decade for the period covering 1979 – 2008 (our study period).

Those are the legit. adjustments. And TOBS-biased stations should really be dropped (or at least have their trends split and treated separately).

And finally, there is bad microsite. That is a bias effect as bad as TOBS (a warming bias) that is not corrected at all. NOAA, CRU, etc. do not concede that poor microsite increases trend results. But they do, demonstrably, bigtime. Either it should be heavily adjusted downward (increasing MoE badly) or those stations need to be dropped. But with 4/5 of US station poorly sited (and the RoW probably worse), is there sufficient coverage for a decent land surface temperature evaluation?

So if those scientists dbs refers to use raw data from all stations, they will still be getting much more warming than is actually occurring (though still considerably less than the official adjusted average).

The other adjustments (homogenization, FILNET, even SHAP, believe it or not) create spurious warming.

Second thought; check me on this, but wasn’t part of the climate-gate file a data set from Mann marked “censored” or some such thing.

This was data that ran contrary to what they were trying to show in MBH ’98 so they simply sat it aside, didn’t use it and failed to disclose it to anyone. Is that not clear and convincing evidence of scientific fraud? What more would someone have to show before being lawfully permitted to refer to Mann as a fraud?

I know that after Muller read up on the subject he had some very harsh comments for Mann, up until BEST mysteriously pulled him down the rabbit hole.

“Not so. I’ve countersued Dr Mann for $30 million. So, even if NR’s appeal succeeds, Mann and I will still be headed to trial. He claimed to want his day in court, and I took him at his word and have determined to give him it.”

I’m sorry I don’t have time to read the whole thread, so somebody may already have mentioned the point I am going to raise, re Carlyle’s comments on Scientific American. Namely: that Edward Teller once described it as “not scientific, and not American.” I know from personal knowledge that their corruption of purpose dates back at least to the 1980s, with their publication of bogus criticisms of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

A few years ago there was a case SCO v IBM. SCO sued IBM over an intellectual property issue related to the Unix patents which SCO asserted they owned and to which IBM, they asserted, infringed. SCO then went on the sue Red Hat, Novell, DamlerChrysler, and Autozone. SCO masterfully worked each of the litigants off each other — doing things like filing a motion to stay the one pending the resolution of the other and then filing a motion to stay the other pending the resolution of the one! The litigation went on for 7 years. Theoretically, if Mann’s objective is to visit economic hardship of the defendants, then perusing a SCO-like strategy would be the way to do it.
===============

And ultimatley SCO got their *** handed to them amidst much revilement from the industry. When was the last time you even heard of SCO? Personally, even before the lidiotic lawduit I always charged a premium on my consulting rate when I had to deal with SCO.

First, let me tell you that I’m a lawyer. Second, let me tell you that even if Mann does drop his plaintiff’s suit against Steyn, Steyn still has his viable suit against Mann and can pursue it at his pleasure. Third, costs are recoverable to the successful party in an American case, but costs are filing fees, service fees , allowable subpoena fees and and some deposition fees. They don’t include attorneys fees. Some of the preceding trolls who have said otherwise are trying to throw everybody off track. Ignore them. Steyn seems to be doing fine representing himself, but I think he has competent legal advice hidden in the background. Steyn’s Answer to Discovery was probably a small packet, Mann’s will take at least a pickup truck to deliver. You have 30 days to answer discovery. You can ask the court for an extension of time, but the court will lose patience if you dally. Parties are encouraged to resolve differences among themselves, but the court will get testy if it sees a deliberate attempt to avoid obligations. The failure to tender the info after the court has ordered production can lead to sanctions which include involuntary dismissal of one’s suit. There are too many people posting on this thread that don’t know the law. Their names are unfamiliar here and I think they are trolls. Very Mannly and very unmanly.

mpaul says:
March 20, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Nolo Contendere says:
March 21, 2014 at 4:30 pm
IBM countersued. In the midst of those 7 years, SCO went belly up. After emerging from bankruptcy, various suits were re-established. SCO lost all at trial with Novell.
May not be quite the kind of result MM is looking for.

Maybe I watch too much Law and Order, but I thought damages can be awarded in a civil case.
One has to be a fly on the wall to know what Mann & cohorts are now plotting. What if he falls ill or worse? Not that I am wishing him that will happen. But if the AGW fraudsters are worried about the outcome, Maybe he will be pressured to drop the case. And then cop the 30 million. That’s what I would do in his position.

The purpose of Mann’s lawsuit is to use the cost of litigation to stifle the speech of those who disagree with him. That is what the Anti-SLAPP motion is all about.

I am as huge a Mark Steyn fan as anyone, but there is nothing wrong with NRO seeking to avoid the costs of responding to discovery. Without seeing the respective discovery requests, it is unclear how extensive Mann’s demands on NRO, but I would bet they are extensive. And the scope of discovery is extremely broad.

Steyn is an individual. So his costs of production will be manageable, particularly since he won’t have a group of lawyers.to pay to prepare and review his responses. NRO’s responses to discovery on the other hand will likely involve substantial cost. Which, again, is Mann’s tactical goal.

Steyn is litigating in a way designed to conduct the litigation in a way designed to humiliate Mann. And good for him. Personally I would love to see discovery from Mann. But NRO is following good legal advice in trying to minimize not just the cost of the litigation, but the potential for a large judgment.

Oh, and Mann has filed a motion to dismiss Steyn’s, shall we say, creative counterclaims. There is no guarantee the claims will survive, since they are based on the same type of allegations as NRO’s Anti-Slapp motion. Steyn should hope NRO wins its appeal.

If you think Mikie, Steyn has no financial backing to pursue this case, I think you are totally off the planet. These are just desperate appeals to stop this court case going into court. I am not a lawyer but I feel there are lawyers on this site, and I hope they are prepared to intervene and give some advice? Yet it has even been to court yet!

Didn’t Mann just recently spew about how much he welcomed the discovery process?

Mann’s barkwhine is apparently rather regularly far worse than his bite. We keep miniature violins on hand to serenade his whining when he opens his mouth and starts his spiel from atop his large sized manure spreader.

That said, I sure hope Mark Steyn manages to actually get full disclosure of all sorts of Mann’s research and “work.” And then rips it to shred during court.

He should start examine his tree ring theory. To start with Bristlecone pines being very long lived, also caused archaeologist to test their Carbon 14 analysts. Seems there were times when the earth got bombarded by an extra dose of Carbon 13 or 14, from outer space, so now it is impossible to get an accurate reading with some artifact that is younger than 5,000 so they put now a minus and plus on their reading. It also went up when they were testing atom bombs in the atmosphere, not underground or under the sea. My late mum related when she was young born 1908 they had lovely summers, and in the 40s – 60s they were rotten. Seems to correspond with all the warfare going on doesn’t it?

Ever since I ended my joint representation with National Review and fired my lawyers on Boxing Day, the endlessly reprised refrain has been that “Mark Steyn has a fool for a client”……

So I am pleased to be able to announce today that several other fellows also have a fool for a client….

Daniel J Kornstein and his co-counsel Mark Platt were the driving force behind the most consequential free-speech legislation this century. Dan is an expert libel lawyer and a principled freedom-of-expression fighter …..

….joining Messrs Kornstein and Platt will be Michael J Songer, co-chair of the Litigation Group at Crowell & Moring in Washington, DC. ….. Mike is also a freespeecher, who teaches a course on the Law of Cyberspace at Georgetown University. He’s big on issues of copyright and intellectual property, which Mann has frequently hidden behind in his attempts to avoid disclosing the data and research that produced his “hockey stick”. In addition, Mike is a science graduate, so he understands both the technical jargon and, just as importantly, how to distill it for a jury.

So I’m no longer an out-of-control full-bore crazy. Instead, I’m an out-of-control full-bore crazy who’s lawyered up to the hilt. …..

I’m also overwhelmed by the number of lawyers from across America who have offered their services and advice pro bono or at steeply discounted rates. It is heartening to know how many understand the stakes for free speech in America. Dan, Mark and Mike believe in this case, understand its importance, and together we will prevail. [end]

National Review isn’t a shadow of what it was when I started reading it in the mid 70’s. Who is surprised by their lack of balls? Every time I’m drawn to that site I miss WFB even more. He never wimped out in court! He was a fighter just like Steyn.

Go Mark! Get your day in court and burn Mann for the full 10 mill. You make them all look weak.